Share this article

Despite him being a clear danger to women, an immigration judge allowed him to stay, ruling: 'The human rights of the rapist appear to trump society's interest.'

It is the latest in a string of disturbing examples of how foreign criminals have abused the Human Rights Act's contentious Article 8, which says that everyone has the 'right to a family life'.

David Cameron has ordered a review of the operation of the act, but faces opposition from Liberal Democrat members of the Coalition.

Yet the 'family life' of Winfield, 38, is extraordinary to say the least.

He has three children by his wife, whom he met after settling in South London where he trained as a chef.

But philandering Winfield walked out on her and the children for a Spanish mistress.

It was during the period he was committing adultery that he raped the Spanish woman.

And it was while he was on bail awaiting a rape trial that he fathered a fourth child by her, in May 2010.

Perversely this had the effect of strengthening his claim to a 'family life' in the immigration case.

To complete the farce, brazen Winfield - still an illegal immigrant - even managed to leave Britain and go on holiday abroad while awaiting his rape trial.

It is unusual enough that a rape suspect be allowed bail, but to be permitted to leave the UK is unheard of.

On his return 10 days later, the UK Border Agency did detain him and, on discovering his student visa was a decade out of date, intended to deport him on the next plane to Barbados.

But Winfield produced a letter from his solicitor showing he was awaiting trial in Britain, and the Border Agency had to pass him to police, who let him go.

Had he been kept in detention, he would not have had the fourth child that boosted his immigration case.

So concerned were police and prosecutors at the danger Winfield posed to women, they pressed ahead with his rape trial even though his victim retracted her complaint. Winfield was jailed for three years, and on his release he fought Home Office plans to deport him.

Senior Immigration Judge Andrew Jordan knew the decision to let him off deportation would be controversial if it came to light. He said it 'might at first glance appear to be wrong, if not perverse' - but insisted it was correct.

His written ruling acknowledged: 'Although the appellant was only sentenced to three years' imprisonment, this does not in any way suggest that the appellant did not commit two acts of rape which speak for themselves as to the seriousness of the offences.'

But he said: 'The use of deportation is a blunt tool if, looked at holistically, the overall effect of deportation is more damaging to society as a whole than its suspension.

Killer: Raja Khan mowed down a father of two, but is able to stay in Britain

'Whilst I can well understand the sense of disquiet that inevitably arises when this type of offence results in a decision that the human rights of the rapist appear to trump society's interest, examination of the competing pressures, both for and against removal, demonstrate that such an approach is oversimplistic.'

Yesterday Conservative MP Dominic Raab said: 'The public interest in deporting a rapist is overwhelming. There is a basic lack of moral clarity in the current regime.

'Cases like these highlight the need for reform, both to protect the public and to reassert democratic control over the ever-expanding judicial inflation of human rights.'

David Davis MP, the former Shadow Home Secretary, added: 'The case for reform is incontestable. Yet again these cases demonstrate the clear need to rethink Article 8 and therefore the Human Rights Act itself.'